You guys might be happy to see this

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I hate to get off topic of US vs Canada

But:

U.S. tests have proven the Mobile Gun System is able to fit inside a C-130 Hercules aircraft

???TESTS???
How much did our government spend on "tests" to figure that one out???
A 10 year old with a tape measure should have been able to figure that out.

testS More than one test?!
Yep. I'm sorry if this sounds like bashing, it is not intended to be. But, isn't the military smart enough to figure that out pretty quickly?

hehe

I think what they're referring to is the careful logistical planning of cramming as many LAVs as possible into one C-130, then testing if the C-130 can lift off (not just what it can do on paper). I think they mentioned the tests on that page but neglected to go into details.

 

[Kenazo]

Skoorb, quit ratting on our health care, although it may be sub-par compared to quite a few of the other G-8 or whichever group you want to compare it too, it does the job. My Grandpa has been in the hospital for the last month and a half (Heart attack recovery), and it sure makes me thankful for our medicare system. There is no way he and my grandma have enough saved up for such a long stay, and I can only guess how expensive insurance would have been for 80 year olds.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AndrewR
C-17 can carry ONE Abrams, which is why the US military pre-positions its military equipment around the globe rather than taking it with them from the States.

Light tanks do make sense for Canada, but a small contingent of heavy armor is still smart for those really touchy situations (think: Somalia). Talk to a tanker and ask him which he'd rather have: a Leopard or a LAV.

I knew it was either one or two at a time. I'm the layman, you're the officer. I still find it kind of incredible that the US has the funds to build and run ships meant specifically for prepositioning, though it makes a whole bunch of strategic sense.

I fully agree - a bunch of Challenger IIs or M1A2s would be really nice to have handy, but... the people in this country would never go for it. "Peacekeeping, not warring," is a popular refrain. Mostly translating to, "We'll come in and stand around the place like policemen after someone else does the dirty work." So for us, perhaps an airlift-based ground force with LAVs, plus state-of-the-art artillery, plus perhaps some F-35s to replace our first-generation F/A-18 Hornets... well, I can dream.

Well, there's something to niche capabilities for smaller nations. Since modern militaries like the U.S.'s are so damn expensive, countries like Canada cannot afford to compete in every category -- which is why alliances like NATO exist to fill the gaps (usually with US forces!). However, that doesn't mean the smaller nations cannot contribute significantly.

A perfect example is Norway. They have a very small military, but they have specialized in arctic and mountain special operations and in combat engineering and mine clearing. Currently, they have either the best or some of the best mountain warfare troops in the world. They aren't many, but they were certainly called in to Afghanistan to help out. Ditto for the mine clearing troops -- some of the best capability in the world, bar none, from what I've read.

There's no reason Canada cannot fulfill the same role for peacekeeping, but I'd still prefer to be sitting in an MBT in case the natives are restless and armed with RPGs.